John, Paul, George, and Ringo: four names that cannot be separated from the musical solar eclipse that was the Beatles.
The reason the Beatles are so revered is because their brief time together created such a deep and decisive line in the sands of music history. Before their entrance on the world scene, meaningful songwriting and the concept of a LP record that was greater than the sum of its parts never really existed. Yes, there were songs. Yes, there were albums. However, looking back at music before the Beatles, it is easy to see why the Fab 4 were considered to be so revolutionary at the time – however much we may take this for granted decades after the fact.
In the entire lexicon of recorded music it is hard to find the emotional, self-revealing risks that are captured in songs like “Yer Blues” and “Happiness is a Warm Gun”, or the irreverent disregard for order and meaningfulness that is captured in songs like “I Am the Walrus” and “Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite”, or the attempts to communicate universal feelings of love and humanity that are found on songs like “Because” and “While My Guitar Gently Weeps”, or the attempts to define the indefinable feelings of mysticism that are found on songs like “Within You Without You” and “Across the Universe”.
But hey, maybe I’m biased. After all, the first album I ever became obsessed with was Rubber Soul. On top of that, I wouldn’t have learned how to sing and play guitar had I never memorized the songbook, Beatles: Best. To this day I even have to catch myself while singing to avoid sounding too much like Paul – too Liverpoolish.
I clearly do not think the Beatles are overrated. If anything, I think they are underrated. But what do the other authors at Babeled think of the Beatles?
Greg Rineberg
- They wrote their own music
- They sang their own music
- They played instruments
Their music is not only well written, but their sound is dynamic. What I mean by dynamic is that as a listener you can hear how different their music ranged from their early years to their latter years. The Beatles have a song for almost ever mood. They set a tone for rock n’ roll.
Jason Morgan
Greg Molyneux
I am reminded of the time Terrence & Phillip slapped Brooke Shields in the face for farting on the set of Blue Lagoon. Only somehow, this is even worse.
Next Up
Puer
Images used in this Post
Les Beatles EP photo courtesy of Flickr user Marxchivist published under the CC license.
Lonely Hearts Club photo courtesy of Flickr user exquisitur published under the CC license.
I just had my first interview today (these guys are in Las Vegas now) and was so...
20 Comments
@Rineberg – Not for nothing but do the three things you listed really qualify as notable qualities? The reason I ask is that there are countless bands that write music, sing, and play instruments. Those qualities seem pretty pedestrian to me.
Indeed, I guess I was referring to the pop bands that exist nowadays that have lyricists write their music and also the fact that a lot of pop bands don’t even play instruments. I’ve heard that the Beatles were overrated before by people that would compare them to pop bands, but in my opinion the Beatles are above all.
How about that use of “lexicon”? Have you ever seen that particular word used to refer to anything other than words? It’s almost like that time Cosmo invented “consumptors” because he thought it sounded better than consumers.
Haha. Consumptors has a nice ring to it
I still laugh about that bit of wordsmithery.
Thank God none of you actually called The Beatles overrated. Do you know how many people got into music because of The Beatles. Some of if not all the most influential musicians over the last 30 years had some influence from The Beatles.
I think you should more firmly put Andrew in his place for even asking such a stupid question.
I was finally able to use the phrase “cock of the walk” in a post excerpt…that alone made this Babeled On 110% worth doing.
In the whole scope of music I feel the are overrated. I don’t like to say an artist is better than another artist, everybody has their own opinion.
With the passing of Les Paul, I hope more people see his contributions to music which I feel were greater than the Beatles.
On a side note, one early album that I feel doesn’t get recognize is Gordon Jenkins – The Complete Manhattan Tower. First issued on 78rpm then on lp format. I have the lp from the Fifties,
It was a continuous concept album with attention to every song.
Many firsts don’t belong to The Beatles.
John Lennon said himself, before Elvis there was nothing. Sorry but Elvis did it first! Anyone who knows anything about music will tell you that Elvis changed the way people viewed the world. It sure wasn’t Sinatra that up’d the standards. And Elvis pretty much produced his own music. People forget about Beatle # 5 George Martin who pretty much wrote and invented most of what the Beatles did, and he allowed them to take the credit. Even if Elvis comes in 2nd to the Beatles, that just shows how great he was because atleast he stands alone in the spotlight. Because it took the talent and charisma of 5 guys to beat the talent and charisma of 1 man. And as far as looks goes, all 4 Beatles combined could not match the sexual liberation that women, girls, and boys felt at the very sight of him. Sex appeal just oozed out of him. He never tried to be cool, he just was! Even today his influence dominates. I see alot more sideburns, slicked hair and retro 50′s shirts than I do mop tops and drab suits. My point is that true greatness of these legends goes deeper than just music.
But what Elvis did have in his arsenal was vocal versatility. He could sing any type of song. He could not only nail a rock ‘n roll song better than anybody, but he could draw you in with tender love songs, gospel, soul, opera due to his incredible operatic range.
The Beatles are great no doubt. But let’s stop pretending that they did not have prior influence beacause they all have been quoted as saying that Elvis was superior and they knew he did it first. They may have influence lots of artists, but again, make no mistake about it, their road to mass fame, hysteria, pandamonium, and superstardom was not an unpaved one. The sexy hip swiveling pelvic disruption came first!
In terms of the direction modern music has headed since the 1960′s, the Beatles have been far more influential than Elvis. Let’s face it…the time of the crooner with a huge backing band (Elvis) is pretty much gone. Instead we see tons and tons and tons of 4-5 piece bands (a la The Beatles) trying to make “classic records”. If you ask most modern bands what a “classic record” is they will almost always respond with something from the late 60′s on. The Beatles were that marker point that divided everything after the 60′s from everything before the 60′s.
Also….what about James Brown? Some would argue his influence is much much greater than Elvis.
Gentlemen, Gentlemen… I do believe it was Robert Johnson who sold his sole for Rock and Roll. So… Actually… before him, there was nothing. haHa!
But it was Jefferson
AirplaneStarship that built this city on it.No. Not quite Jack, at that point they were just Starship and I was only 3.
The Beatles are absolutely overrated. They wrote great pop singles and were hugely influential to the musical direction (and music marketing and merchandising) of the 60′s. But were they more important or groundbreaking than Hendrix, the Stones, Who, Motown? No. McCartney wrote dorkish adolescent lyrics that distracted from his great composing skills, Lennon’s obtuseness in later years took the edge off his rock instincts. Harrison was one of the great guitar composers, but I could have lived without his pop mysticism. Ringo, god bless him, was a solid rock drummer who didn’t take himself too seriously, but who let him contribute Octopus’s Garden – yeesh!
They deserve an enormous amount of credit but let’s keep it in perspective.
(Sorry to jump in in the middle of a conversation)
Anybody who thinks the Beatles were the end all and be all of music are definitely wrong. The Beatles changed a lot about music, but not everything. For example, one of the names you mentioned, Jimi Hendrix, revolutionized the range of sounds that could come out of an electric guitar (the Beatles didn’t). Hendrix is equally as revolutionary as the Beatles, just in a different way. They’re both amazing artists who changed music history.
I think the Beatles should also be given credit for continuing to effect music marketing and merchandising……did anybody get Beatles:Rock Band……or did anybody purchase the rereleased box set of mono/stereo albums even though they already owned the albums on CD from the 90′s? These guys keep bringin in the money years after they broke up. That’s impressive.
No. Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Chuck Berry, and Little Richard revolutionized music! Beatles wouldn’t even make the top 10!
The Beatles would totally make the top 10!….Their influence over modern songwriting equals any of the names you just listed. The Beatles get a lot of flack because they are so darn popular and accessible – but that should really make you appreciate them that much more.
“Jo Jo was a man who thought he was a loner. But he knew it couldn’t last.”
From a former Beatlemaniac: I think the Beatles are the most overrated band in history. It’s as if that entire generation was hypnotized into believing that they were so great, and they’re still hypnotized. And it’s spread to many members of subsequent generations. The blinders have to come off. It’s really time to see them for what they were. They weren’t bad–they made a lot of good music. But so did a lot of other bands, and many other bands made much better music. Certainly far more adventurous music.
The songs you listed (interesting that there are no Paul songs on your list)–I mean, come on. Irreverent disregard for order? Go listen to Captain Beeheart! Next to him, the Beatles are pale indeed.